[PATCH v2 2/2] drm/print: document DRM_ logging functions

[Sam Ravnborg]

Hi Daniel.
> > > 
> > > I'd replace the entire block with a "This stuff is deprecated" warning. We
> > > have at least a corresponding todo.rst entry.
> > 
> > We have many situations where no drm_device is available.
> > At least when you a buried in drm_panel patches.
> > 
> > So it is either DRM_DEV_ERROR() or drv_err().
> > Which is why I have pushed for nicer drm_ variants of these...
> 
> Huh, drm_panel indeed has no drm_device. And I guess we don't have a
> convenient excuse to add it ...
> 
> > The todo entry only covers the nice new macros that Jani added
> > where we have a drm_device.
> 
> I wonder whether for those cases we shouldn't just directly use the
> various dev_* macros?

We would miss the nice [drm] marker in the logging.
So [drm] will be added by the drivers and the core - but not the panels.
That is the only drawback I see right now.

Which was enough justification for me to add the drm_dev_ variants.
Feel free to convince me that this is not justification to add these
variants.

In drm/panel/* there is no use of DRM_DEBUG* - and there is no
reason to introduce the variants we can filer with drm.debug.

There is a single DRM_DEBUG() user, which does not count here.


We could introduce only:

drm_dev_(err|warn|info|debug) - and not the more specialized variants.

Then we avoid that people make shortcuts and use drm_dev_dbg_kms() when
they are supposed to use drm_dbg_kms().
This was one of the very valid argumest against the patch that
introduced all the drm_dev_* variants.

	Sam